DINESH ROLLER FLOUR MILL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Central Government had issued a licence to the petitioners to establish a new industrial establishment. The licence so granted was revoked by an order dated 23rd April. 1981, Annexure '9' to this application. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing Annexure '9'.

(2.) The petitioners, petitioner 1 is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and petitioner 2 is one of the partners, applied for Kraut of an industrial licence under Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (the Act) for setting up a Wheat Roller Flour Mill, at Bokaro. The Central Government issued the licence on 20th April, 1974 which is Annexure 1 to this writ application. In terms of Annexure 1, the undertaking was required to be completed and commercial production to start within the period of two years from the date of the order of the licence. The petitioners were also under Annexure '1' required to furnish returns in Form 'C' outlining the progress in implementation of the, licence for each half year to the Central Government with a copy to the Director of Industries. Bihar, who is to monitor the implementation of the licence. The petitioners, however, could not establish the undertaking within the stipulated period and the licence was extended up to 31st December, 1976 which is Annexure '2' to this writ application. The petitioners applied for allotment of a plot of land in Bokaro Industrial Area to the Bokaro Industrial Area Development Authority and land was allotted to it. By Annexure '3' the possession of the land was handed over to the petitioners. According to the petitioners the delivery of possession was merely a paper transaction as the land in question was in occupation of members of the Scheduled Tribes and their eviction could have caused serious question of law and order. The petitioner, therefore, purchased a piece of land by private agreement on 5-11-1979 for a consideration of Rs. 48,500 (Rupees fortyeight thousand five hundred). The petitioners had already got fabricated steel structures for the factory premises. It also invested about Rs. 30,00.000 (Rupees thirty lakhs') for construction of the building premises, setting up machinery and for other ancillary jobs for establishing the industry. As the industrial licence of the petitioners had not till been revoked by the Central Government and as some more time was required to complete setting up the industrial establishment and for it to go into production, the petitioners on the 10th March. 1980 applied to the Central Government for extending the above licence for a further period of twelve months. In that application the petitioners had stated that in spite of taking effective steps by them towards setting up the industrial project, the undertaking could not be completely set up. The Central Government requested the State Government to verify the actual position with regard to the setting up the industry by the petitioners to enable the former to consider the question of extending the licence. The request of the Central Government was made by letter dated 6-5-1980, which is Annexure '5' to the writ application. It however, appears that before the petitioners applied for extending the licence, the State Government by its letter dated 18-6-1977 had written to the Central Government to cancel the licence of the petitioners. But on receipt of the letter from the petitioners that they were taking effective -steps to establish the undertaking, the State Government requested the Central Government to treat its letter dated 18-6-1977 as withdrawn and to allow the licence to stand in the name of the petitioners. These facts appear from Annexure '4' to the application dated 9-7-1977. However, according to the, respondents Annexure '4' was not received by the Central Government. In reply to Annexure '5' the State Government requested the Central Government to consider the application for extension of licence keeping in view that the petitioners had taken effective steps to establish the industry. The Central Government by Annexure '7' dated 26-6-1980 issued a notice to the petitioners to show cause why the licence should not be revoked. By Annexure 8, the petitioners filed its show cause. By Annexure '9' the Central Government revoked the licence of the petitioners. According to the petitioners Annexure '9' was issued by the Ministry of Agriculture. Department of Food, Government of India which had no jurisdiction to issue the same. Further, in view of the fact that the petitioners had taken effective steps to set up the industry and also in view of the fact that the delay in setting up the industry was beyond its control, the Central Government could not have revoked its licence.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. According to the respondents. Annexure '4' i.e.. the letter dated 9-7-1977 written by the State Government to the Central Government withdrawing the earlier letter dated 18-6-1977, by which the cancellation of the licence of the petitioners was recommended, had not been received by the Central Government. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Food, Government of India had jurisdiction to revoke the licence of the petitioners.